Obi Wan Was Wrong – Don’t Use the Force!

    Socialists and so-called “Progressives” constantly tell us that their “plan” is kinder and gentler because it is a plan based upon giving to the poor. They attempt to contrast this with Capitalism which they claim is harsh and mean-spirited, especially to those in need. But are they correct in saying this? Have they thought it through? Let us examine precisely what a Capitalist “system” really is.

    First, Capitalism isn’t a “system” so much as it is the absence of a system. Capitalism is simply a naturally occurring form of economy that forms with the presence of a government that protects individual rights including the rights of property. The unstructured and free nature of Capitalism therefore disqualifies Capitalism from being considered an actual “system” in a true sense. Thus if we are discussing forms of government, then we shouldn’t actually be discussing Capitalism as it is little more than a naturally occurring phenomena. Instead, we should be discussing the form of government that allows truly free Capitalism to exist: limited government.

    So now let us compare limited government with socialistic government. First, it is important to realize that within limited government not only can Capitalism exist, but a host of other kinds of economy. Indeed, given the limited nature of a limited government and its hands-off approach to individual freedom, individuals are free to pursue whatever sort of economy they desire. Unionized factories? No problem! Communes? We can do that. In fact, any kind of voluntary system you can imagine can be had alongside Capitalism in a free, limited system of government. The key term here is “voluntary”.

    So why can’t we have Socialism alongside Capitalism? We can have voluntary redistribution of wealth to the poor in a free system. What we cannot have in a free system is involuntary, forced or coerced “giving” (otherwise known as “taking”). Giving is a voluntary act. Therefore nothing can be considered as giving to the poor if it is forcibly confiscated. Forced confiscation is known as taking – not giving.

    Thus we see that Socialism is not merely a system whereby people give to the poor. It is a system of force and coercion whereby people must either render to the State what it demands or be punished. Contrast this with the free and voluntary benevolence that is possible under limited government and alongside Capitalism. The presence of Capitalism does not coercively force anyone to conduct their affairs in any particular way. This leaves each person free to pursue their own views of how they want to live their lives. In such a free system, nobody is allowed to coercively force someone else to accept their views. But Socialism leaves no option but Socialism. Worse, if you attempt to choose something other than Socialism (by refusing to participate) you will be punished by force of law, meaning that one specific view (that of Socialism) is forced upon all. No one is free to act upon an opposite view. So we see that Socialism is hostile to freedom of choice and freedom to act on one’s own views.

    Now let us briefly examine the nature of government. This will be a very short examination since government is nothing more than force. Some will tell you that government is many things, but the truth is that when you boil any act of government down to its root you will always find force. Force is the only means by which government can obtain your cooperation. If government fines you for speeding, they can more or less depend on you to pay the fine because they know you are aware that if you do not pay the fine you will feel the iron fist of government. So we see that even more passive methods of enforcement, such as fines, still have their basis in the use of force.

    Socialism must operate through government and government is nothing more than force. Therefore, Socialism is a specific application of coercive force. But isn’t Socialism supposed to be about charity? This is a good time to hear from Frederic Bastiat, a French economist who lived through the brutal French Revolution:

    "There are three regions in which mankind can dwell: a lower, that of plunder; a higher, that of charity; and an intermediate, that of justice. Governments perform only actions having force as their sanction. Now, it is permitted to force someone to be just, but not to force him to be charitable. Law, when it would do by force what ethics does by persuasion, far from rising to the region of charity, falls into the domain of plunder. The proper domain of law and governments is justice."

    While charity cannot be forced without it becoming plunder, we can freely choose charity within a system of limited government and even as part of a Capitalist society. We can be as generous and as benevolent as our hearts desire and nobody can forcibly keep us from these goals. The one and only thing we cannot do under such a system is to use coercive force to press our views and ways upon others. This is the primary point of distinction between a free system and Socialism.

    We must then conclude that the aims of Socialism – namely the provision for the poor, common ownership, etc – can all still be achieved alongside, or even through Capitalism. The only missing component is that of coercive force. And I hope we can all agree that we need as little coercive force in our lives as possible. Let us all be free to live our lives as we see fit. Let us not have people forcing their views upon others. Let us have limited government! And let the socialist realize that his “plan” is neither kind nor gentle.